Despite this long history of public education and policy, today’s conversations are particularly one-dimensional and ahistorical, for example:
- Solutions are proposed as if they are “novel,” despite decades’ worth (or longer) of research into their efficacy. For example, solutions that link market principles with educational policy have been around since at least the nineteenth century, when district and state controlled “common schools” surfaced as the predominant form of education for most children (versus the religious and locally based schools from previous centuries, Cremin, 1980). Much discourse from the nineteenth century reveals that the arguments given at the time for centralization and alignment with private industry run parallel with argument given today: for example, industrialists saw education, especially state-funded vocational education, as a perfect solution for creating a skilled workforce to facilitate the creation of the United States into a key player in the global market-place (Kaestle & Smith, 1982).
- Ideas that have long been included in educational policy are forgotten and discarded (that, for example, the complex socio-economic ecosystem in which students experience education plays a significant role in educational achievement, Anyon, 1997, 2005a, 2005b, and Apple, 2004). Today’s educational key policy-makers and leaders, such as President Barak Obama, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and various local school district leaders of all political stripes, espouse a rhetoric that solutions to poor educational achievement can come only through better schools and better teachers—thus ignoring hundreds’ of years worth of research from all fields—history, sociology, psychology, education, policy, philosophy—that environmental and contextual factors (economic, social, racial, etc) play a much larger role in student achievement than schools ever could.
- Overall the atmosphere dictated by the rhetoric of the media and of reformers is one of “crisis.” Scholars describe “crisis disciplines” as those in which solutions must be chosen before research can be fully completed, such as, for example, conservation science. In conservation science, many solutions may be attempted before much data is acquired because problems often call for immediate action (Soule, 1985). In education, often situations also demand quick action, however, a lot of data already exists, and research has already been done for centuries from multiple perspectives, so education policy cannot really be said to truly occupy a place of “crisis” (because research exists that can be used to ground and construct solutions).
In his seminal work, Truth and Method, Hans-Georg Gadamer writes that it is important to “recognize that in all understanding, whether we are expressly aware of it or not, the efficacy of history is at work,” and that “on the whole the power of effective history does not depend on its being recognized” (1975, p. 300). In other words, historical context shapes current worldviews, policies, and events, whether we are conscious of particular histories or not. Therefore, creating education policy in a vacuum of information, while ignoring the hundreds of years’ worth of research into education from many perspectives and disciplines, is negligently irresponsible, for it facilitates the institutionalization of ideas that are not supported by evidence or research (and thus, ideas that largely derive their power from fiery rhetoric or partisanship, and not scholarship or actual historical record).
A plethora of research into the historical origins of current educational policy exists (a limited list of examples includes Anyon, 1997, 2005a, 2005b; Apple, 2001a, 2001b, 2004; DeBray, McDermott, & Wohlstetter, 2005; Hursh, 2005; Kaestle & Smith, 1982; Kantor, 1991; Kantor & Lowe, 1995, 2006; Kliebard, 2004; McDonnell, 2005; McNeil, 2000; Meier & Wood, 2004; Oakes, Wells, Jones, & Datnow, 1997; Orfield, 1978; Orfield & Lee, 2005; Price & Peterson, 2009; Spring, 1986; Steffes, 2008; Sunderman & Kim, 2007; Tyack, 1974; and Whitty, 1997)—the critical questions we need to ask include not “what is the research” but “have our policymakers read the research” and, more importantly, “how do we make policy makers and the public aware of the research” and “how can we create research-aligned policy that serves our current needs?”
I am currently working on my PhD Comprehensive Exams, which, for my program, consist of writing three research papers, on (1) education policy, (2) curriculum and pedagogy, and (3) methodology (that I will use in my dissertation). My first question (on policy), written and advised by Professor Robert Croninger, essentially involves historicizing current trends in federal education policy (such as No Child Left Behind, initiatives to link pay to quantified test scores, efforts to standardize and centralize curriculum, and more) in order to assess possibilities for and paths towards “eco-justice” oriented reform.
I will be writing much more on this topic in future days and weeks, but for now it will suffice to say that eco-justice oriented reform is another reform agenda, supported by a significant amount of research, that stands in many ways opposed to current dominant market-oriented reform agendas. Eco-justice reform is grounded in a perspective that values embodied and holistic individual and communal health and well-being, a view that stands in stark contrast to current mainstream reform movements that value individualistic, rational, intellectual pursuits (see, for example, the work of Barron, 1995; Bowers, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1993a, 1993b, 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2006; Bowers & Aoffel-Marglin, 2005; Fien, 1993; Fromm, 2009; Garrard, 2004, 2010; Gaard & Murphy, 1998; Glotfelty & Fromm, 1996; Gruenewald, 2008; Heise, 2008; Judson, 2010; Mortimer-Sandilands, 1999, 2008; Morton, 2007; Murphy, 1995; Noddings, 2005; Orr, 2002, 2004; Roberts, 2007; Schwartz, 2009; Stables & Scott, 2001, and Warren, 1994).
Before discussing eco-justice reform and its potential in detail, however, as I have discussed above, it is important to first understand the current context of education policy by historicizing its roots and development. Here is a sketch of a time-line of general trends and specific events I am looking at to help contextualize policy today:
1800s
Trends towards centralization of schooling begin, manifested in gradual transfer of control of schools from localities to districts and states (see, for example, Kaestle & Smith, 1992) but overall small, rural schools remain celebrated institutions embodying localized democracy (Steffes, 2008).
1867
The federal Department of Education is created; its primary mission is to collect information, not to dictate policy or programs, or to offer funding.
1868
14th Amendment to the Constitution is passed; this Amendment includes the Equal Protections Clause, which stipulates that the state must provide equal protection to all people in its jurisdiction. The Equal Protections Clause would be cited as the decisive text upon which the Supreme Court based its 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling.
Early 1900s
The “rural school problem” comes to the fore of policy debates; rural schools are considered inferior to urban schools, and mostly white rural folk are incensed that large portions of black urbanites receive access to better schools than white children in the country (Steffes, 2008). Trying to solve the rural school problem, states propose a series of steps that increase centralized control over local school districts (in order to supervise them and offer professional development and support)—this finding stands in stark contrast to most perspectives that emphasize urban growth and reform as the defining factor in centralization; in fact, rural school reform also contributed significantly to consolidation and standardization trends.
1910s-1930s
More movement towards centralization occurs as multiple states experiment with “equalization funds,” aimed to help districts with poorly performing schools “equalize” achievement for their students. These funds are passed partially in response to the “rural school problem.”
1917
The Smith-Hughes Act is passed in response to the 1913 Commission on Vocational Education, whose 1914 report emphasized the importance of schools to creating a productive, internationally competitive and prosperous workforce (Anyon, 2005b, and Kaestle & Smith, 1982).
1930s
The New Deal ushers in a new era in federalization; although the New Deal passed a significant number of social progressive policies such as Social Security, Old Age Assistance, and Aid to Dependent Children (Quadagno, 1998), access to these was limited based on race and class. The overall effect of the New Deal is that it institutionalized racism in America’s federal social support network (an effect that would partially be undone by legislation passed during the Great Society era of the 1960s).
Late 1930s
Black and civil rights activist groups begin to win “equalization” court cases, thus furthering the legitimacy of federalization. For several decades, local school districts are able to evade court rulings by creating merit-pay systems that favor white teachers (Kantor & Lowe, 1991).
Late 1930s and Early 1940s
The “compensatory” (vs. “regulatory”) state wins out political debates in the United States. A compensatory state attempts to mitigate the social outcomes of market forces by providing social scaffolds to individuals at-risk in the market (for example, by providing insurance for investors), while a regulatory state is one that regulates the market directly and thus ensures that it does not create social inequities. For many historical reasons, as much of Europe moved towards regulatory states, the United States blazed its own trail (Kantor, 1991 and Kantor & Lowe, 1995). This has significant consequences for education, as it is now seen as *the* key to social mitigation of the market. Instead of choosing to equalize actual outcomes of market-forces (such as extreme poverty in a large portion of the population), a compensatory state views education as the (for the most part, ONLY) way to provide equalization opportunities for individuals.
1954
Supreme Court decides Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, overturning 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson decision and stated unequivocally that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
1958
National Defense Education Act prioritizes intellectual achievement, honors and gifted and talented programs, math and science, and conveyed the message that “critical self reflection, the arts, and humanities are luxuries we can hardly afford” (Kaestle & Smith, 1982, p. 395).
1960s
The Great Society is ushered in by Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and is considered the “second big bang of welfare state reform” (Quadagno, 1998, p. 4). However, just as other nations began offering a new tier of benefits, the United States movement “became absorbed with the struggle for civil rights and equal opportunity” and thus did not significantly expand entitlement programs, except for the creation of Medicare and Medicaid by Congress in 1965.
1964
Civil Rights Act is passed, which includes Title VI, prohibiting federal aid to schools practicing discrimination. This legislation paves the way for the ESEA in 1965.
1965
Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is passed; this act is the predecessor of No Child Left Behind (in fact, NCLB is a revision of the original ESEA act and not an original policy, though it does modify several significant implementation details; there have been many revisions of ESEA since 1965). ESEA is considered by many the beginning of federalization, though a careful historical account shows trends towards centralization had been present for at least a century. However, ESEA does mark a significant turning point in attempts of the federal government to dictate local education policy (Kantor & Lowe, 1995; Kaestle & Smith, 1982; and Anyon, 2005b). ESEA is highly influenced by the thesis of “cultural deprivation thesis” prominent at this time, that postulates poverty creates certain psychological conditions that individuals have a difficult time overcoming alone (for example, culture-of-poverty proponents emphasize that poverty creates dependency, and thus a lack of will and capacity to attack source of own problems).
1970s
A move towards “color-blindness” racism is prevalent in the United States; after 1973, courts begin retreating from enforcement of segregation orders, and in general the public begins accepting the notion that “equal education for people of color can be achieved without asking anything of whites” (Kantor & Lowe, 2006, 490).
1972
Tite IX Amendment to ESEA bans sex discrimination in schools.
1973
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects rights of people with disabilities in schools.
1974
Education of the Handicapped Amendment to the ESEA is passed.
1975
Education of All Handicapped Children Act further protects the rights of students with disabilities.
Early 1980s
A shift occurs in the “culture of poverty” thesis; the rhetoric in the public policy sphere turns from “equity” to “excellence.” No longer primarily concerned with equalizing opportunities, policy makers declare themselves committed to “success” (McDonnell, 2005).
1981
The Education Consolidation and Improvement Act is passed at the behest of President Reagan, and embodies his belief in smaller government by cutting federal spending on education.
1983
The influential report, A Nation at Risk, is published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, commissioned by President Reagan. A Nation at Risk bemoans the lacking state of U.S. education and the negative effect on productivity and international competitiveness. This report has been much criticized since its publication, however it has been immensely influential in defining today’s momentum towards standardization, endless testing, accountability, and quantification (McDonnell, 2005 and Anyon, 2005b).
Late 1980s and Early 1990s
Neo-conservatism ascends in policy rhetoric, and gains influence as it is espoused by an increasing number of private organizations, “think-tanks,” non-profits, and lobbyists (Quadagno, 1998); neo-conservatives are especially concerned with federal welfare provisions impeding the “natural” progression of the free market, and thus attempt to privatize an increasing number of federal programs. This will have significant consequences for education, as charters, vouchers, “school choice,” and other privatization efforts will come to the forefront in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
1994
Clinton’s Improving America’s Schools Act is passed; this is not a new bill, but a reauthorization of ESEA. This incarnation of ESEA mandates challenging standards for all students, and for the first time requires states to disaggregate test results by race, gender, ELL status, migrant status, disability, and economic status. Further, it requires corrective action against schools deemed “failing.”
2001
President W. Bush tries his hand at revamping ESEA and lobbies Congress to pass the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Scholars argue that NCLB “highlights how federal responsibility for social welfare has narrowed over time” (Kantor & Lowe, 2006, p. 476)—whereas previously, the state took some responsibility for segregation, poverty, and socio-economic conditions that affect educational achievement, with NCLB the rhetoric that education is *the* one and only answer to societal problems caused by capitalism (free market forces). Scholars also argue that NCLB stigmatizes failing schools and children and punishes them (by withholding funds, for example) instead of supporting them (by offering research, professional development, or additional funds).
Early 2000s
Our educational system has institutionalized privileges for those of higher socio-economic status, typically whites and has “consistently exacerbated differences in access and outcome based on race, ethnicity, and class” ( Apple, 2004, p. 24). Other detrimental effects of policies currently in place have been the decline in overall standards, a shift in emphasis from “what the school does for the student to what the student does for the school,” and the transformation of public education into a marketable commodity.
There is much analysis to be done here, but at 6 pages this post is long enough for today. What I have attempted to do (through only a broad and brief overview) is show that today’s educational policies have a long and complex history that we must consider before attempting any kind of “reform”; in today’s ahistorical climate of discussion, such historicizing is particularly critical in turning the conversation towards actual time-tested and researched reforms, instead of empty and non-practical ideological propositions.
* For a complete bibliography of the sources used in this post, please see my running Bibliography.
No comments:
Post a Comment